Table 2.
Quality assessment of the studies using quality control checklist.
Study | Clear research question | Participant selection free from bias | Comparable study groups | Participant withdrawals or response rate described | Use of blinding | Description of intervention protocol and/or data collection procedures | Outcomes clearly defined | Appropriate statistical analysis | Conclusions supported by results | Unlikely funding bias | Overall quality rating |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fentie et al. [31] | + | + | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Fage et al. [32] | + | + | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Wiafe et al. [33] | + | + | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Gebreyesus et al. [34] | + | + | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Chalise et al. [35] | + | + | N/A | − | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Shaka and Wondimagegne [36] | + | + | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Ahankari et al. [37] | + | + | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Regasa and Haidar [38] | + | + | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Agrawal et al. [39] | + | + | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Thomas et al. [40] | + | − | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Nelima [41] | + | + | N/A | − | N/A | + | + | + | + | NR | + |
Ramzi et al. [42] | + | + | N/A | − | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Kaur et al. [43] | + | + | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | NR | + |
Leenstra et al. [44] | + | + | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
El Sahn et al. [45] | + | + | N/A | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + |
N/A, not applicable (due to cross-sectional design of study); NR, not reported. +, positive overall score: this overall score is given if criteria 2, 3, 6, and 7 of the QCC and one additional criterion have received a positive score. Ø, neutral overall score: this score is given if more criteria are met than for a negative overall score, but an overall positive score is not reached. −, negative overall score: this score is given if six or more QCC criteria are not met.